Licensing bulletin

/*/4ss. cAi-l-Z?: v

*v

ssmmsT urn

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION

LICENSING BULLETIN

Number 4 January 16 , 1981

AMENDMENTS TO LICENSING REGULATIONS AND FORM 100 ARE COMPLETED

The Commission promulgated the final version of amendments to its
licensing regulations and Form 100 on November 26, 1980. These amend-
ments, which were initially promulgated on September 15 as emergency
regulations (in slightly different form) went into effect on December 4,
19S0 , when they were published in the Massachusetts Register, Issue No.
^38. Copies of the Report and Order dealing with these amendments and
the amendments themselves have been sent to all recipients of the
Licensing Bulletin.

The amendments to the licensing regulations do four things:

(1) Clarify the deadline for making a final decision on the license
grant ;

(2) Prohibit an applicant from making any material changes in its
proposal after the deadline for filing amendments has passed;

(3) Require that a stenographic or tape record be kept of the
final hearing to assess applicant qualifications; and

(4) Prohibit construction of a cable system prior to the grant of
the final license.

The amendments to the Form 100 require all applicants to file
copies of their articles of organization, partnership agreements, or
other organizational documents. This material must be filed even if
there is no plan to distribute ownership interests. The amendments also
require complete disclosure of all documents and agreements relating to
any sale or distribution of ownership interests in the applicant.

If any such agreements are entered into after the deadline for
filing amendments, copies of the agreements must be filed within seven
days of their execution. Finally, the Form 100' s Schedule G: Equity
Mnancing - Ownership Distribution Plan has been revised to provide a

ire complete and accurate description of the applicant's plans for
distributing equity ownership.

Room 1105 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-6925

Publication #12254-6-550- 1-81-CR
Approved by John Manton, Acting State Purchasing Agent

Number 4 -2- January 16, 1981

PROVISIONAL LICENSE: WHY?

The Licensing Regulations include a step before the execution of a
final license for a cable franchise and that is the signing of a "provi-
sional license." This step has caused some confusion to issuing
authorities and advisory committees, as well as no doubt a number of
representatives of the cable industry. There are two basic reasons for
the requirement of a provisional license in the Commission's rules:

1. To enable smaller cable companies to compete more readily
against larger well financed companies. The grant of a pro-
visional license empowers the company to seek financing without
binding the municipality, as would a final license, if it cannot
deliver on its promise. Cities and towns are thus given an
opportunity to choose from a wider range of cable applicants
than otherwise may have been able to apply.

2. The municipality is protected. During the period of the pro-
visional license the licensee must make ready for construction,
submit a bond, indemnify the municipality and generally follow
through on a number of promises made during the application
process. The municipality has an opportunity to evaluate the
company's willingness and ability to perform during this period
before it is bound by the terms of a final license.

i
Rule 3.04(3) states that: "The provisional license shall be valid
for a period of one year by which time the provisional licensee must have
met the requirements set forth in section 3.05(1)." Please note that
this one year period is a maximum time period. The actual drafting
period leading to the signing of a provisional license usually takes
approximately two weeks to two months. The provisional licensee's prepar-
ations can often be completed well within a year's time allowing for the
signing of a final license in a typical license situation in less than
six months from the date of the franchise grant.

One last point to note relative to the provisional license period
is that in accordance with the recently enacted Regulation 3.04(6):
"Actual construction of physical facilities for a cable system may not
commence prior to the grant of a final license pursuant to §3.05."

QUINCY LATE FILE

The City of Quincy sought an advisory from the Commission concerning
a cable applicant's attempt to file certain documentation omitted from
its otherwise timely filed final amended application. The deadline for
filing final amended proposals was set for November 21, 1980 and twelve
pages of documentation including Pro Forma financial information were
Jivered to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on November 26, 1980.

In an advisory dated December 8, 1980 the Commission noted that the
sue was not one of exclusion of the applicant since an "applicant may
file only the initial application and still be considered a valid appli-
cant." The Commission quoted its earlier Advisory Notice, No. 1 of

Number 4

-4

January 16, 1981

December 5
8

North Attleboro - UA-Columbia

Beverly - Continental Cablevision
8 Lexington - Adams-Russell
18 Gloucester - New England Cablevision of Mass., Inc.

18 Rockport - New England Cablevision of Mass., Inc.

19 Attleboro - Inland Bay Cable TV Associates

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

Community :
Watertown

Norton

Date :

November 12, 1980

December 17, 1980

December 17, 1980

December 29. 1980

Action Taken:

Deadline for final decision
extended to January 26 , 1981

Deadline for final decision
extended to January 14 , 1981

Taunton

Kingston

Andover January 6, 1981

MASSACHUSETTS CABLE TELEVISION SUBSCRIBER GROWTH

Deadline for final decision
extended to April 24, 1981

Deadline for final decision
extended to April 8, 1981

Deadline for final decision
extended to February 27, 1981

This chart shows the increase in Massachusetts cable television
subscribers over the last eight years.

Subs -rib t;

75 , 000

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Subscribers 94,822 129.621 151.549 168.359 182.195 209,006 238,182 272,792 325,000*

increase
*F.st i ma ted

371

171

12T

8r

15?

14<

is*:

197*

Source of Information - Number of Subscribers: Record of License Fees Bo<>k

-5- January 16, 1981

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The staff of the STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, in cooperation with
the Community Antenna Television Commission, has prepared the follow-
ing statement for inclusion in this licensing bulletin:

In an advisory opinion issued on October 1, 1980, the STATE ETHICS
COMMISSION advised a state employee that section 4 of the conflict-of-
interest law, General Laws Chapter 268A, prohibits him from working for
a private company in its efforts to secure cable television licenses in
Massachusetts communities. Section 4 prohibits a state employee from
receiving compensation from or acting as the agent or attorney for any-
one other than the Commonwealth in relation to any particular matter in
which the state or any state agency is a party or has a direct and sub-
stantial interest; this section also prohibits private parties from
giving, offering or promising such compensation.

The STATE ETHICS COMMISSION ruled that applications and decisions
regarding the issuance of cable television licenses in local communi-
ties involve "particular matters" as that term is defined in the law.
Following an exhaustive review of the statutes and regulations which
govern the awarding of cable licenses, the Commission's opinion states:

Clearly the state has extensively regulated the awarding of
cable licenses by municipal officials pursuant to a compre-
hensive statutory and regulatory scheme which, although
delegating the licensing decision to the local authorities,
requires substantial interrelationship between them and the
Cable Television Antenna Commission, a state agency. This
extensive regulatory scheme, coupled with the state's authority
and obligation to monitor, and if necessary to intervene in and
ultimately overturn the licensing process, gives CATC a direct
and substantial interest in the awarding of municipal cable
television licenses. Accordingly, section 4 prohibits [a state
employee] from working for [a private company] in connection
with their efforts to secure cable television licenses.

Section 17 contains similar restrictions on the conduct of municpal
employees and private parties. Since the awarding of cable television
licenses is a matter of direct and substantial interest to the munici-
pality involved, section 17 would prohibit a full-time municipal employee
from receiving compensation from or acting as the agent for a cable com-
pany in connection with its efforts to secure a cable license from the
employee's own town; it also prohibits a cable company from offering to
hire the municipal employee. Violations of sections 4 and 17 contain
criminal penalties. In addition, the STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, which is
primarily responsible for civil enforcement of the statute, may impose
civil penalties including fines of not more than $1,000 for each
violation.

Section 23 of Chapter 268A sets forth additional prohibitions appli-
cable to all public employees which address conduct which may create the
appearance of impropriety regardless of whether actual misconduct results.
Given the sensitive nature of cable licensing proceedings, these pro-
visions are especially relevant to assessing whether - or under what
circumstances - municipal employees involved in the licensing process
or their families should have any private relationship with or accept
anything of value from a cable television company. They are also

Number 4 -6~ January 16, 1981

particularly relevant whenever those municipal employees are enter-
tained by cable companies or their travel or other expenses for
visiting sites are paid for by the companies. The provisions of
section 23 are interpreted and enforced by the STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
and by appropriate state and municipal officials through appropriate
civil and administrative action.

The specific provisions of Section 23 state that no officer
or employee of a state, county or municipal agency shall:

a) accept other employment which will impair his independence
of judgment in the exercise of his official duties;

b) accept employment or engage in any business or professional
activity which will require him to disclose confidential
information which he has gained by reason of his official
position or authority;

c) improperly disclose confidential information acquired by
him in the course of his official duties nor use such
information to further his personal interests;

d) use or attempt to use his official position to secure un-
warranted privileges or exemptions for himself or others;

e) by his conduct give reasonable basis for the impression
that any person can inproperly influence him or unduly
enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties,
or that he is unduly affected by the kinship, rank, posi-
tion or influence of any party or person; or

f) pursue a course of conduct which will raise suspicion
among the public that he is likely to be engaged in acts
that are in violation of his trust.

Former municipal employees and their partners are also subject to
the law. In general, a person who, while a municipal employee, worked
on the awarding of a cable license cannot leave municipal service and
work for the cable company in its efforts to secure that same license;
even if they did not personally work on the licensing matter but it was
mder their official responsibility, they cannot for one year appear
before an agency of their own town in connection with it. See sections
18(a) and 18(b) of Chapter 268A. The restrictions on the partner of a
former municipal employee are contained in section 18(d).

Copies of the cable television advisory opinion, EC-COI-80-95 ,
nay be obtained from the STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, Room 1413,
One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108 (617/727-0060) .

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
.?:»o. 5 COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION

Cable Bulletin

Number 5 May 19, 1981

On April 21, 1981 I had the distinct honor of being sworn
in as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Cable Television Com-
mission by Governor Edward J. King. I would like to take this
opportunity to commend Jeffrey R. Forbes not only for his excel-
lent term as this state's first full-time Commissioner but also
for his many previous years of outstanding service as the Com-
mission's Executive Director. Jeff brought his own unique style
and wit to the office and his will be a difficult act to follow.

The former Licensing Bulletin distributed by the Commission
has been renamed Cable Bulletin and will be slightly expanded to
cover cable issues beyond licensing. A new Commission publica-
tion, The Cable Licensing Process: A Practical Guide for
Municipal Officials and Cable Advisory Committees is presently at
the printer and the 20+ page informative document will soon be
available .

A brief pamphlet entitled, Everything you wanted to know
about Cable Television but did not know who to ask!!.' has been

written for, and exclusively distributed to, Massachusetts
Legislators. A similar pamphlet designed to inform cable sub-
scribers of the existence of the Commission and its readiness to
service them as consumers is now being written and will soon be
available for distribution.

I would like to continue the Commission's previous policy of
open accessibility to the questions and comments of all parties
interested in cable television. This is certainly an exciting
time of remarkable cable television growth in the Commonwealth
and I hope to take a constructive part in this growth during my
term as Commissioner.

Thomas K. Steel
Commissioner

Room 1105 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-6925

Publication #12409-7-600-5-81-CR
Approved by John Manton . State Purchasing Aerent. .

-2-

'

GUIDELINES FOR, "COMPARISON SHEET" SUBMISSIONS TO ISSUING AUTHORITIES

The Commission was asked whether a cable applicant could
submit a "comparative analysis" of cable applications to an issuing
authority after the final amendment deadline. In a January 20, 1981
advisory opinion, the following guidelines were established as being
consistent with the Commission's rules and with fundamental principles
due process :

(1) Any such comparison should be based solely on evidence
already in the record;

(2) Any such comparison should be submitted prior to the commence-
ment of the public hearings, in order to allow other
applicants an opportunity to respond to inaccuracies or
mistakes in the document;

(3) The issuing authority should be provided with enough copies
to allow for distribution to all other applicants, or the
comparison should be delivered to the other applicants by
the party preparing the comparison.

The advisory opinion went on to note that inaccuracies in comparison
sheets, if relied on by the issuing authority, might be used as a basis
for appeal by unsuccessful applicants.

DECISION ISSUED IN BROCKTON "LATE-FILE" APPEAL

On March 11, 1981, the Commission issued its decision in Brockton
Citizens Cable Television v. David Crosby, Mayor of Brockton. This
appeal arose when the Mayor refused to accept an initial application
which arrived three minutes after the deadline for submissions.

After holding a fact-finding hearing, the Commission decided that
the application had indeed arrived after the deadline set by the City,
and the Mayor had decided not to accept it. The Commission's policy in
these matters is to allow the local issuing authority to decide whether
to accept the late application, so long as the late applicant has not
had an opportunity to gain any material advantage by reason of the late
filing. Therefore, as the decision had been made by the Mayor, the
appeal was denied by the Commission.

A Note on Late-Filed Applications

To date, several communities have been confronted with the issue of
late applications. Natick, Franklin, Milford, and Boston have all
accepted late-filed initial applications, ranging from ten minutes to
fifteen hours (one and three-quarters business hours) late. Recently,
however, late applications have not been accepted in Randolph and
Brockton. In Brockton, the late application came in less than three
minutes late, and in Randolph one application came in only five minutes
late .

-3-

NEWSPAPER- CABLE CROSS-OWNERSHIP: WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS

On February 11, 1980, the Commission issued an advisory
opinion interpreting the section of the Massachusetts cable
statute prohibiting "newspaper media and their affiliates" from
being cable licensees "in their major circulation areas."
G.L.C.166A, sl(e). The opinion responded to a request from the
owner and publisher of the Boston Phoenix, who also owned one
of the original applicants for the Boston cable license, Abetta
Corp.

The Commission's opinion concluded that weekly newspapers,
as well as daily newspapers, were included in the statute's
cross-ownership prohibition. Because over 40% of all copies of
the Phoenix are distributed in Boston, the Commission concluded
that Boston was included in the area which accounts for the
majority of the Phoenix's circulation, and is therefore within
the Phoenix' s major circulation area. Finally, the opinion con-
cluded that the Phoenix and Abetta were affiliates, so the award
of the Boston license to Abetta would violate §l(e) of the
s t at ut e .

On March 9, 1981, Abetta Corp. and the Phoenix's publisher
filed a civil suit against the Commission and the City of Boston,
alleging, among other matters, violations of their constitutional
rights (Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 47125). The
Phoenix also sought an injunction to stop the Boston licensing
process before final amended applications could be filed. On
April 23, 1981, Judge Fine of the Suffolk Superior Court denied
the request for injunctive relief.

1980 Cable Revenues

Cable revenues for 1980 have been received from all
operating cable companies serving 250 subscribers or more. The
Commission collected $268,234.40. This represents a 23% in-
crease over State revenues collected during 1979.

The cable subscriber count as of 12/31/80 for all operat-
ing systems is 335,440.

CAPE COD RATE INCREASE APPROVED

On April 23, 1981, the Commission approved a rate increase
for the Cape Cod Cablevision system in Barnstable, Chatham,
Dennis, Harwich, and Yarmouth (Docket No. COV-30). The Boards
of Selectmen in all five towns had held hearings and voted to
grant the rate increases, and the Commission issued a "Certif-
icate of Verification" approving the increases. In a cover
letter accompanying the COV, the Commissioner noted that, in
the usual case, the Commission has no reason to intervene when
the licensee and the local issuing authority are in agreement.
It has been the Commission's consistent practice in previous
cases of this type to approve the increases agreed to on the
local level.

-4-
BERKSHIRE CABLE TELEVISION RATE CASE

in

an

Rates and Charges and VZ22?&\ ^ioJl^l^dST-

and .St^ii-S'™??1 thS Comraission allowed the motion to consolidate
and stated that uniform rates shall be established in this proceeding

The Commission will be issuing interrogatories in Mav jft., +h=

DECISION ISSUED IN PLYMOUTH APPEAL

No. A-12. The appeal was dismissed due to the apnM 1 «nt ' <= 1 1 tl u°CK®r

as an aggrieved applicant. appellant s lack of standing

Campbe^.^

appealable claim, a„d (2) SMC lacLd^Xndin^as^an^ggrieved appl cant*
The Commission ruled against Campbell on the first ground stating ?hat

license ine Commission's decision was based on the dissolution nf + h*
solved^if co^dtner^P " ^^°ber' 198°- Because that °w ^is-

s?and?ng1toCp0ursduen0thebeapapWeaaied * ""—" ■ Md theref0~ "^without

DECISION ISSUED IN WEYMOUTH APPEAL

:ppSlicantSSed ^ L° the a^ant's lack of standing as 'an aggrieved^*1

Bay ShoreWCabletTVBA^d of+Selectmen VOted to Srant a cable license to
denied annlicantl ^sf°«ates ln November, 1980. Teleprompter , one of the
grounds m T»?» I ? a? appeal- Bay Sh°re moved to dismiss on two
statutorv annJ? P romPter s aPPeal "as not filed within the thirty day
aggrieved party P6ri°d; a"d (2) TelePr°™Pter lacked standing as an *

-5-

The Commission ruled that the appeal was filed in a
timely fashion in this case. It also stated the following rul-
ing on the thirty day period: in all appeals brought before
the Commission, the thirty day appeal period will begin on the
date the written decision is mailed by the issuing authority to
the applicants.

The motion to dismiss for lack of standing argued that
Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, the licensee of Boston's
Channel 4, had acquired 28.9% of Teleprompter ' s stock, and
that federal restrictions on cable-broadcast cross-ownership
therefore rendered Teleprompter ineligible for the Weymouth
cable license. The Commission ruled that, due to the cross-
ownership, Teleprompter was ineligible for the Weymouth license
on the basis of federal law, state law, and state policy. Be-
cause it was not eligible to be granted the license,
Teleprompter was without standing to pursue the appeal.

STATUS OF PENDING APPEALS

Marshf ield

Bay State Cablevision Corporation has appealed the
Marshf ield Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to
Marshfield Cablevision, Inc. (Docket No. A-15) . The Commis-
ion is awaiting the filing of answers by the Board and the
winning applicant.

Mid-Bay TV Associates has petitioned the Commission for
leave to intervene in the proceeding; this request is opposed
by Marshfield Cablevision. A ruling on the request for inter-
vention is anticipated within the next week.

Norton

Inland Bay Cable TV Associates has appealed the Norton
Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to Rollins Cable-
vision of Southeast Massachusetts, Inc. (Docket No. A-16) . A
pre-hearing conference was held on April 28, 1981, and the
hearing on the merits has been tentatively scheduled for
June 9. The Commission plans to hold that hearing in Norton.

Taunton

Greater Taunton Cablevision has appealed the Mayor of
Taunton's award of a cable television license to U.A. Columbia
Cablevision of Massachusetts, Inc. (Docket No. A-17) . River
Bay Cable TV Associates petitioned for leave to intervene in the
proceeding, and a hearing was held on that request. The Com-
mission's ruling was to allow River Bay to participate in the
proceeding by making oral argument and filing a brief, but not
to intervene fully with all the rights of a party.

-6-

The Commission has issued an order stating that Rollins,
the winning applicant, jls a party to the proceeding (see "Some
Notes on Appeals", below).

A pre-hearing conference on this proceeding will be held
within the next week.

Wakefield

Colonial Cablevision Corp. has appealed the Wakefield Board
of Selectmen's award of a cable license to Warner Amex Cable
Communications (Docket No. A-18). The Commission has ruled that
Warner Amex ijs a party to the proceeding (see "Some Notes on
Appeals", below). A pre-hearing conference will be scheduled
within the next few weeks.

Hopedale

Charles Carson, DBA Village Cable, Inc., has appealed the
Hopedale Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to
Massachusetts Cablevision of Hopedale (Docket No. A-19). The
Commission is awaiting the filing of answers by the Board and
the winning applicant .

SOME NOTES ON APPEALS

Appeals to the Commission are adjudicatory proceedings
governed by 801 Code of Mass. Regulations, §1.00: New Standard
Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under these rules,
all papers filed with the Commission must be accompanied by a
certificate of service, which is a sworn statement that copies
have been sent to all other parties to the proceeding (801 CMR
§1 .01( 5) ( f ) ) . The Commission will not accept any papers for
filing unless such a certificate accompanies the filings.

In two cases, a question has arisen regarding the status of
the winning applicant as a party. The Commission's rule is that
the winning applicant is always a party to an appeal of the
license award. Therefore, the winning applicant must be sent a
copy of all filings, including the initial appeal.

Erratum: The first paragraph on the top of page 6 refers
to the Norton appeal, Docket A- 16.

■P

avj

-»■•.■-

■

■

^

■■ 9Ph9 i **• til

1 Hfe

^m

^m

*fc.

K
em

7-

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

Community :
Mansfield

Hyannis

Norton

Southwick

Westwood

Bellingham

An dove r

Milford

Springfield

Mendon

Norwood

Braintree

Milford
Eastham

Date

January 21, 1981

January 23, 1981

February 3, 1981

February 9, 1981

Action Taken:

Deadline for final decision extended
to March 30, 1981

45-day time limit for town's filing
of rate increase analysis extended
to February 2, 1981

Deaeline for final decision extended
to February 12, 1981

Allowed to proceed with sole appli-
cant; waiver of §3.03 allowed

February 19, 1981 Deadline for final decision extended

to July 1, 1981

March 4, 1981
March 5, 1981
March 9, 1981
April 16, 1981

April 17, 1981
April 17, 1981
April 28, 1981

April 29, 1981
May 1, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to July 31, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to May 6, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to April 30, 1981

Waiver of requirement that filing of
amendments be permitted, subject to
some conditions

Deadline for final decision extended
to September 6, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to June 30, 1981.

Deadline for holding hearing to deter-
mine whether to proceed with licensing
process extended to June 9, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to May 31, 1981

Provisional license extended to
July 1, 1981.

j» Hifs..KA^..3-.i, nrwaBiiinsr i m.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION

Cable Bulletin

Number 6 August 17, 1981

NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The Massachusetts Cable Television Commission has a new Executive
Director. David Tarantino has been hard at work at the Commission since
June 15, 1981. David had been a teacher and administrator in the
Plymouth school system for 15 years following his graduation from
Providence College. David has also served as a Selectman in Plymouth
for the past ten years and is currently the Board's chairman. David's
administrative background, communications skills and cable experience
make him uniquely qualified for the role he will play at the Commission.

GOVERNOR SPEAKS AT HYANNIS

Governor Edward J. King addressed those in attendance at the
New England Cable Television Association annual convention on July 13,
1981 at Dunfey's in Hyannis. The Governor took note of the fact that
"Cable is Making it in Massachusetts." By the end of 1982 the cable
industry will have invested over 300 million dollars in the Commonwealth.
In 1982 alone over 44 million dollars will be spent on cable related
locally purchased goods and services.

Governor King pronounced deregulation of basic cable rates to be
a success and praised cable companies for their reasonable response to
deregulation. The Governor stressed that the state would be taking a
leadership role in furthering development of local origination and
public access programming, educational uses for cable and implementation
of a municipal interconnect system.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR LICENSING COSTS

An inquiry was made to the Commission concerning the propriety of
a town requiring that the winner of a cable license reimburse the town
for the costs incurred during the licensing process. In particular,
the question of reimbursement for the cost of a consultant was raised.

In an advisory dated June 15, 1981 the Commission noted that
neither the Commission nor the municipalities has authority over the
license fee structure established in Chapter 166A , section 9 of the
General Laws of Massachusetts. This section establishes an application
fee of one hundred dollars, payable to the city or town, and an annual

Room 1105 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-692:

A n proved hv r .TnVm ,T . Ma n ton ' St. a +.e Pi irr.hn sinD1 A crenl:

-2-

l
license fee of fifty cents per subscriber, also payable to the city or
town. A fee of eighty cents per subscriber is paid annually to the
Commonwealth. No other fees or payments are authorized by the statute.

Chapter 166A, section 9 has established a detailed regulatory
scheme, including an enumeration of application and license fees. It is
the Commission's opinion that any other fee requirement is inconsistent
with the lav/, and therefore not allowed.

In those cases where professional assistance is felt to be neces-
sary, it is the Commission's feeling that a relatively small expenditure
required at this stage of the process is justified by the benefits a
cable system will bring to the community in the long run.

LOW INTEREST LOANS

On May 18, 1981 the Commission was asked about the propriety of
Watertown receiving a loan from a cable company to cover the cost of the
installation of an energy management system for the town.

The separate issue of whether or not the Energy Management System
was an appropriate offering was addressed in an advisory opinion dated
July 11, 1980. The Commission's Advisory stated that since the equip-
ment would be paid for by the city rather than the cable company the
costs of the system would not be passed on to the cable subscribers.
The system was therefore acceptable.

On the subject of a loan, the Commission advised that a loan would
be permissible only if the town pays the going interest rate for such
loans. If a loan were offered at a lower interest rate the cable sub-
scribers would end up subsidizing the town's energy management system,
v/hich would be inconsistent with Commission policy.

TAUNTON APPEAL WITHDRAWN

On July 9, 1981, Greater Taunton Cablevision withdrew its appeal
of the award of the Taunton cable license to UA-Columbia Cablevision
(Docket A-17) . The hearing had been held in Taunton on June 25, and
briefs had not yet been filed. Because of the appellant's withdrawal,
the Commission issued an order formally dismissing the appeal on July 20

ATTENTION TO ACCESS

Cable franchising has produced a great deal of activity in the
area of local origination and public access programming. Mary Louise
Gardiner, a Master of Science candidate at the Boston University School
of Communications, has been working for the Commission this summer on
several access related pro jects . The results' of last year's access
questionnaire have been recently released in report form, an access or
community programming newsletter is in the works for September release,
and a seminar related to local programming in Massachusetts is being
planned for later this year.

4

— -3-

The Commission is attempting to establish itself as a clearinghouse
for community programming information. Please contact our office if
you have any questions, concerns, suggestions or recommendations in this
regard.

RATE INCREASES - NOTICE REQUIREMENT

Suspension of cable rate regulation went into effect on July 25,
1980 for over 70% of state subscribers. This regulation clearly states
in CMR 207 Section 6.55(1, 2), that:

(1) Thirty days prior to the effective date of any change
in rates and charges in a system where rate regulation has
been suspended, the licensee shall file with the Commissioner
and each issuing authority in the system affected a schedule
of existing rates and charges and a schedule of all changes
in rates and charges .

(2) The licensee shall notify subscribers of any proposed
increase in rates and charges by an enclosure in its billing
to subscribers or by separate mailing at least fourteen days
before the effective date of such increase.

This is anything but a complicated notice requirement . However, in
the month of June the Commission was not notified of a rate increase in
one instance, and neither the Commissioner nor the issuing authority
were notified in another instance.

***CABLE OPERATORS PLEASE NOTE; In future cases of any change
in rates or charges notice requirements must be strictly
followed. Failure to comply with these regulations will be
the subject of remedial action by the Commission.

COMMENTS ON REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PROFIT PROGRAMMING ORGANIZA-
TIONS SOUGHT

In the last few months, several issuing authorities have required
that the winning applicant fund a non-profit organization dedicated to
the promotion of programming on access or local origination channels.
While such arrangements are permissible, the Commission is concerned that
such monies will be provided as promised and also that monies which would
otherwise be used directly for programming may be diverted to the admin-
istrative costs of operating such non-profit organizations. According-
ingly , there has been some discussion relative to initiating reporting
requirements for these organizations to insure that the funds are supplied
and devoted to the benefit of system subscribers.

Rather than issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking now, the
Commission is using this issue of the Bulletin to solicit your ideas
and suggestions. Please address any comments to David Tarantino,
Executive Director, and refer to this matter as "Non-Profit Organization
Reporting Requirements."

-4-

STATUS OF PENDING APPEALS

Marshfield, Docket A-15

On May 20, 1981, the Commission denied Mid-Bay Cable TV Associates'
petition for leave to intervene, instead allowing Mid-Bay to participate
by making oral arguments and filing a brief. A pre-hearing conference
scheduled for July 15 was cancelled, and a letter detailing the hearing
procedures was sent out on July 24. The hearing has been scheduled for
August 18, and will be held in Marshfield.

Norton, Docket A-16

The hearing on this case was held in Norton on June 9, 1981, and
parties filed their briefs the week of July 20. The Commissioner and
staff are in the process of preparing a decision.

Wakefield, Docket A-18

The hearing on this case was held in Wakefield on July 1, 1981.
Briefs have not been filed yet, but should be received in mid-August.

Hopedale, Docket A-19

The Commission has received answers from the Board of Selectmen
and the winning applicant. A pre-hearing conference will be held in
mid-August .

Mansfield, Docket A-20

On May 15, 1981, Inland Bay Cable TV Associates appealed the Mans-
field Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to Massachusetts
Cablevision Systems, Inc. Answers were received in early June, and a
pre-hearing conference was held on July 30, 1981. The hearing on this
matter has been tentatively scheduled for September 9, 1981.

Medway , Docket A-21

On May 28, 1981, Rollins Cablevision of Southeast Massachusetts
appealed the Medway Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to
Southern Massachusetts Cablevision of Medway, Inc. An answer was
received on June 25 from the winning applicant, and a pre-hearing confer-
ence was scheduled for August 4, 1981. The conference was postponed and
will be rescheduled as soon as possible.

Milford, Docket A-22

On July 3, 1981, Southern Massachusetts Cablevision of Milford, Inc.,
appealed the Milford Board of Selectmen's award of a cable license to
Colonial Cablevision Corporation. On July 6, Colony/Six Plus Cablevision,
Inc., filed an appea] of the same decision. Also on that date the Comm-
ission received a petition, apparently signed by over 1,500 Milford
voters, requesting an investigation of the license grant, and a cover
i ter from a member of the Milford Cable Advisory Committee also
,uesting an investigation. The two appeals will be conducted as a
consolidated proceeding.

1

-5-

Answers were filed by both the Board of Selectmen and the winning
applicant. In addition to these filings, several motions were also
filed. The Board moved for leave to serve written interrogatories on
Southern Massachusetts Cablevision of Milford, and also moved for a
more definite statement of one allegation in Southern Massachusetts
Cablevision 's appeal. Colony/Six Plus Cablevision moved for a more
specific answer from the Board. These motions have been granted.

In response to the petition and cover letter, the Commissioner
has authorized the staff to conduct a preliminary investigation of the
license award and to submit a report on the results of that investigation.

RATES AND CHARGES

A list of cable rates and charges is now available from the
Commission. The list is comprised of 101 communities which have operat-
ing cable systems. Included for comparison purposes are such items as
installation charge, basic rate, additional outlets, pay services, and
transfers .

-6-

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

Community :
Manchester

We st wood

Essex

Brookline

Randolph

Provincetown

Hatfield

Danvers

Brookline

Williamsburg

Men don

Date :

May 22, 1981

June 9, 1981

June 12, 1981

June 15, 1981

June 22, 1981

July 7, 1981

July 15, 1981

July 16, 1981

July 17, 1981

August 5, 1981

August 5, 1981

Action Taken :

Allowed to proceed with sole
applicant; waiver of §3.03 granted.

Deadline for final decision
extended to December 15, 1981.

Allowed to proceed with sole
applicant; waiver of §3.03 granted,

Deadline for final decision
extended to August 4, 1981.

Deadline for final decision
extended to October 23, 1981.

Deadline for final decision
extended to October 26, 1981.

Allowed to proceed with sole
applicant; waiver of §3.03 granted

Deadline for final decision
extended to December 29, 1981.

Deadline for final decision
extended to September 10, 1981.

Allowed to proceed with sole
applicant; waiver of §3.03 granted

Deadline for final decision
extended to November 6, 1981.

-7-

1

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

Community :
Mansfield

Hyannis

Norton

Southwick

Westwood

Bellingham

An dove r

Milford

Springfield

Men don

Norwood

Braintree

Milford

Eastham

Date :

January 21, 1981

January 23, 1981

February 3, 1981

February 9, 1981

Action Taken:

Deadline for final decision extended
to March 30, 1981

45-day time limit for town's filing
of rate increase analysis extended
to February 2, 1981

Deaeline for final decision extended
to February 12, 1981

Allowed to proceed with sole appli-
cant; waiver of §3.03 allowed

February 19, 1981 Deadline for final decision extended

to July 1, 1981

March 4, 1981
March 5, 1981
March 9, 1981
April 16, 1981

April 17, 1981
April 17, 1981
April 28, 1981

April 29, 1981
May 1, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to July 31, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to May 6 , 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to April 30, 1981

Waiver of requirement that filing of
amendments be permitted, subject to
some conditions

i

Deadline for final decision extended
to September 6, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to June 30, 1981.

Deadline for holding hearing to deter-
mine whether to proceed with licensing
process extended to June 9, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended
to May 31, 1981

Provisional license extended to
July 1, 1981.

Commonwealth c* Massachusetts
,!n0.7 COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION

Cable Bulletin

Number 7

October 14, 1981

NOTICE OF INQUIRY ON LICENSE RENEWALS

The Massachusetts cable statute was enacted jn ^te^il! be

number of 1^"*^^ has^regula-

expiring within the ne*t tew years . XJ"V 166A x requires

IS? nrSplfcatio-rf^^a!^?^^ a'commisLon^orm
(2) pub c ear's must be held on such applications; and (3) a
license may be renewed for a period no longer than ten years.

A* the current wave of licensing begins to recede, license re-
newalsViU become increasingly t^tant^ ^co'di ngly, the Com-
mission is soliciting comments and -gge tions^fo^a regu^ ^ ^

^rBufleUrrecipientsTiiSinlhe ne^week, will ask for written
comments by mid-November.

DECISION ISSUED IN NORTON APPEAL

final stage of the licensing process.

Although five separate issues were raised in the appeal, the de-

£^iriSSr.M»SWSti^i Hollfns £a -Regional
SS centre ^eanter -s ^presently ^^constructio^^in^

SSSJSS'h^o^SSr.S tnaf time * £ -^uent-eeting wxth

the Board of Selectmen, Rollins tried to clarify the status o

thus the Commission directed the Board to go udu

ing

Room 1105 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-6925

PUBLICATION: #l?574-6-600-10-81-CR . t

Approved by John J. Manton, State Purchasing Agent

-

-2-

Three other major issues were dealt with in the decision. The
Commission stated that an issuing authority may delegate the con-
duct of the final hearings to a cable advisory committee (or other
properly designated agent). However, because final hearings are
best conducted by the issuing authorities themselves, the Commis-
sion stated that any delegation of authority to conduct the hearings
must be specific and unambiguous.

The Commission also ruled on the practice of inviting the
applicants to address the issuing authority again after the final
hearing was closed. The Commission's regulations (207 CMR §3.04(1)
limit the assessment of applicant qualifications to the applications,
amendments, specifications, "oral testimony given during the hearing
and other relevant information included in the hearing record"
(emphasis added). Therefore, if applicants address additional
comments to the issuing authority after the hearing is closed, those
comments cannot properly be included in the issuing authority's
decision-making process. The correct procedure would be to re-open
the final hearing after proper notice (207 CMR §3.01(2)).

Finally, the Commission emphasized that the statement of reasons
for granting or denying each applicant must be in detail, as re-
quired by 207 CMR §3.04(2). The statement should be specific in
citing all the important factors leading to the cable licensing de-
cision, and should deal with each rejected applicant in detail.

TAUNTON - IN KIND BENEFITS - FINAL LICENSE

The City of Taunton requested that the Commission review the Final
License draft before it was executed by the City and UA-Columbia, the
successful applicant. The Final License draft at Section 14 stated
that UA-Columbia shall provide security and fire alarms and surveillance
service to the City with no provision specifically related to cost.

In a letter dated September 28, 1981, the Commissioner noted that
it is "well settled Commission policy" to restrict offers of "in-kind"
benefits to services directly related to cable subscribers and not to
allow exclusive use of cable facilities by local governments without
a reasonable reimbursement to the licensee. The Commissioner de-
clared:

It must be clearly stated in the Final License that
provision of services of benefit exclusively to the
municipality such as security and fire alarms and
surveillance for municipal buildings will be made
only upon reasonable reimbursement paid by the City
to UA-Columbia. It is the City which must bear the
cost of such services and not the subscribers .

OPEN MEETING LAW: REMINDER TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND ISSUING
AUTHORITIES

The Massachusetts cable licensing process is designed to be a
public process, in which each step of the procedure is subject to full
public scrutiny. In the last few months, the Commission has received

-3-

inquiries about the applicability of the open meeting law to cable
advisory committee deliberations on cable television.

The Commission stated its opinion on the open meeting law over a
year ago in a letter which was summarized in Licensing Bulletin No. 3.
To reiterate, a Cable Advisory Committee is a "government body" as
defined in the open meeting law (G.L.c.39, §§23A, 23B, and 23C) , and
all meetings must therefore be open to the public.

NEW COMMISSION STAFF MEMBERS

The Commission has recently hired two new staff members to fill
long standing vacancies. Roseanne McMorris is now a staff attorney
and will generally assist in the legal work of the Commission.
Roseanne is a graduate of the State University of New York College at
Brockport , and New England School of Law. She leaves her previous
employment as hearing examiner for the Rent Control Board in
Brookline. Roseanne ' s experience in conducting hearings and process-
ing appeals will no doubt make her a valuable asset to the Commission.

Barbara Cuggino, a Boston College graduate, joins the Commission
staff to work primarily in the area of community programming. She
will be coordinating the Commission's efforts to encourage develop-
ment of the potential of community programming. Two immediate goals
include publication of a newsletter and the establishment of the
Commission as a clearinghouse for community programming information.
Barbara will also offer administrative support to the Commission and
assist in handling consumer complaints.

CLAIRE HURLEY RESIGNS FROM COMMISSION

Anyone who has called or visited the Commission's office during
the past eight years has invariably had the pleasure of meeting Claire
Hurley of the Commission staff. Through her demeanor and performance,
Claire colored the Commission with an aura of professionalism and
efficiency. Claire's unique combination of enviable qualities includ-
ing creativity, initiative, courtesy, intelligence and certainly
patience, make her impossible to replace. We wish her well as she
pursues her career outside the public sector .

MOBILE HOME PARKS - RIGHT TO WIRE

In a letter dated September 22, 1981, the Commission responded to
a question regarding a cable company's right to enter a mobile home
park to install CATV system equipment. The Commission indicated that
while the operator is required (by M.G.L. c. 166 §35) to obtain consent
before entering the park for the purpose of affixing its equipment ,
that consent may be obtained by compliance w/ §22 of cl66A. "Once
the requirements of c. 166A §22 are complied with," the Commission
stated, "the cable operator has the right to enter the premises for
the purpose of affixing cable facilities, even if the owner objects."
The right of mobile home owners to receive cable service is based on
their rights as tenants of the park.

-4-

MILFORD INVESTIGATION - COMMISSION FINDING

A petition was received on July 6, 1981 signed by approximately
1,500 citizens of Milford. The petition requested that the Commission
investigate the Milford award to Colonial for the following reasons:
a) Colonial did not meet or comply with numerous mandatory specifica-
tions set by the Selectmen, b) the reasons stated by the Selectmen
were not adequate nor based on fact, c) Colonial's rates were higher
than other applicants and d) other applicants offered better systems
to subscribers in the Town of Milford.

The petition was accompanied by a cover letter from CAC member
Cenedella, which stated in part:

that the decision to award to Colonial was arrived
at, by two members of the Milford Board of Select-
men, well in advance of the public meeting held on
May 29, 1981 . . . in. violation of the Massachusetts
open meeting law.... In fact, I believe evidence will
show that the decision to award to Colonial pre-
ceded even the Advisory Committee's recommendation
of Specifications which were adopted by the Select-
men on December 22, 1980.

The Commission determined that the appeals timely filed by
Colony/Six Plus Cablevision, Inc. and Southern Massachusetts Cable-
vision in Milford adequately address the licensing issues raised in
the petition. The allegations raised in Mr. Cenedella's letter be-
came the subject of the Commission's investigation, which began in
early August and involved interviews with all members of the
Milford Board of Selectmen, Milford 's Town Counsel, Milford ' s CAC
Chairman, and cable company representatives.

The investigation concluded that: while there is evident dis-
agreement among the Milford Selectmen as to the choice of a company
to operate the Milford cable system, investigators could discover
no substantive evidence of collusion by the Selectmen to determine
the successful applicant prior to the date of the actual award.

CABLE FRANCHISE CONFERENCE

Commissioner Steel participated in a one-day cable television
franchise law conference held in Washington, D.C. on September 16,
1981. Speakers from across the nation representing a variety of
points of view spoke at the conference sponsored by Paul Kagan
Associates. The Commissioner discussed the two step licensing
process used in Massachusetts and offered the Commission's Practical
Guide to Licensing for distribution. Deregulation of basic cable
rates has become a national issue and the Commissioner commented on
the Massachusetts experience since basic cable rate regulation was
suspended for some 70% of the state's subscribers in July of 1980.
Overall, cable basic rates have increased by only 7.5% in deregulated
systems and, on average, deregulated systems charge less than those
systems still under regulation. While competitive franchising has
been a restraint upon companies raising rates, cable marketing
strategies are currently at work causing "basic" rates bid in new

-5-

systems to decline. The Commissioner observed that basic rate regula-
tion in the 80 ' s may become a non-issue.

A REMINDER TO ALL CABLE LICENSING COMMUNITIES

Copies of all Issuing Authority Reports, Statements of Reasons,
Provisional Licenses, and Final Licenses are required to be filed
with the Commission within seven days of issuing. All communities
involved in cable licensing should check to be sure that all necessary
reports, statements, and licenses have been filed with the Commission
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 166A.

STATUS OF PENDING APPEALS

Marsh field, Docket A- 15

The hearing on this case was held in Marshfield on August 18, 1981,
and all parties have filed briefs. A decision will be issued during
the week of October 13.

Wakefield, Docket A- 18 ,

The hearing on this case was held in Wakefield in July, 1981.
Briefs were filed in late August, and the decision will be issued dur-
ing the week of October 13.

Hopedale, Docket A-19

On August 18, 1981, Village Cable moved for permission to amend
its petition and to file interrogatories on Southern Massachusetts
Cablevision. In an order dated September 17 , 1981, these motions were
allowed. The deadline for filing answers to the interrogatories was
set for October 13.

A pre-hearing conference will be held in Boston on October 19, 1981
Mansfield, Docket A-20

The hearing on this case was begun in Mansfield on September 9,
1981. The continuation of the hearing was tentatively scheduled for
October 14, 1981, but will probably be re-scheduled for a later date
in October.

Medway, Docket A- 21

The pre-hearing conference on this case was held in Boston on
October 6, 1981. The hearing has been tentatively scheduled for
November 17, 1981.

Milford, Docket A-22

, i

All interrogatories and other responsive pleadings have been
filed with the Commission, A pre-hearing conference will be held in
Boston on October 16, 1981.

The results of the Commission's related investigation are

-6-

reported elsewhere in this Bulletin.

Boston, Docket A-23

On September 11, 1981, Abetta Corporation filed an appeal of
Mayor White's decision to award the Boston cable license to Cablevision
Systems Boston Corporation. Answers were filed by both Boston and
Cablevision by October 2, 1981. Both answers contained requests that
the appeal be dismissed.

A hearing on these requests will be scheduled as soon as possible.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

Community :

Hatfield

Milton

Date :
August 6, 1981 Allowed to proceed with final decision.

August 31, 1981

Tyngsborough August 31, 1981

Westford

Martha' s
Vineyard

Sept. 9, 1981

Sept. 15, 1981

Deadline for final decision extended to
January 15, 1982.

Waiver of requirement for filing of
amendments, subject to certain con-
ditions .

Waiver of 60-day deadline for applica-
tions granted. Allowed to advertise
with 30-day deadline.

Deadline for decision extended to
January 31, 1982.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION

3?no.8

Cable Bulletin

Number 8 November 16, 1981

DEREGULATION HEARING TO BE HELD

The Commission will conduct a hearing to determine whether
regulation of rates and charges should be suspended in those
systems operating since May 27, 1980. A review of the 18 newly
operating systems will be made in accordance with 207 CMR 6.50
to determine whether adequate competitive alternatives exist to
the provision of services offered by those cable television systems.
Upon such a finding, the Commission shall suspend rate regulation
for that system.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 16, 1981 at
2:00 p.m. in Hearing Room B, 10th floor, 100 Cambridge Street,
Boston. Written comments may be filed up to ten days after the
hearing. Persons expecting to testify are requested to contact
Roseanne McMorris at (617) 727-6925. Copies of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking In Re Competitive Standard Rule making, Docket
No. R-8 are available at the Commission office.

MARSHFIELD LICENSING PROCESS TO BEGIN AGAIN

On October 14, 1981, the Commission issued its decision in
Bay State Cablevision Corporation v. Board of Selectmen of Town
of Marshfield and Marshfield Cablevision, Inc., Docket No. A-15.
The license was revoked and the Town was directed to commence the
licensing process again.

A partnership named Marshfield Cablevision filed an application
prior to the initial filing deadline of February 27, 1980. During
the licensing process the applicant changed its type of business
organization, ownership and control. Marshfield Cablevision, Inc.
became the applicant on the amended application filed November 19,
1980. This corporation was organized under the ownership and
control of Chris Craft Industries, Inc. which was in no way involved
in the original application. As the decision concludes:

Marshfield Cablevision, Inc. did not file an initial
application as required by 207 CMR 3.02(5). A new
legal entity may not enter the licensing process at
the amendment stage. Marshfield Cablevision, Inc. is
ineligible to receive the license from the Marshfield
Board of Selectmen because it is not a valid applicant.

Room 1105 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-6925

Approved by: John J. Manton, State Purchasing Agent
Publication # 12604-5-600-11-81-CR

-2-

In a letter dated November 6, 1981 the Commission responded
favorably to a request from the Marshfield Board to grant waivers
of certain cable licensing rules. The effect of the waivers is
to allow the Town to conduct a one step process. The Town must
advertise for new applciants and set a deadline for filing
applications at least 60 days following publication of such
advertisement .

The Selectmen have chosen to use the same issuing authority
report as used in the first process. The new process is open to
all cable companies who wish to respond to the issuing authority
report. There will be no opportunity for amended applications
and following public hearings the license may be awarded by the
Selectmen .

DECISION ISSUED IN WAKEFIELD APPEAL

On October 9, 1981, the Commission issued its decision in
Colonial Cablevision Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of the Town of
Wakefield and Warner-Amex Cable Communications Company, Docket
No. A-18. The commission upheld the Wakefield Board of Selectmen's
award of a cable license to Warner-Amex.

Colonial had alleged in this appeal that members of the
Board of Selectmen failed to visit the facilities of each applicant
in violation of a Commission Advisory Opinion, and that one
member of the Board relied upon his on-site visit to Warner, in
voting to award them the license. Members of the Cable Advisory
Committee did visit the facilities of each applicant with a
system operating in Massachusetts. The Commission found that since
the Board had a sufficient basis for its decision, the failure of
its members to visit each applicant's facilities was of minimal
impact to the process. It was clear that the Board's assessment
of each applicant, including that of Selectman Moccia, took place
without regard to any on-site visits that may or may not have
taken place. The Commission did emphasize that since its Advisory
Opinion on Cable Advisory Committees was intended to ensure that
all applicants be accorded fair treatment by requiring that
the committe act without any suggestion of favoritism, it clearly
applies to Issuing Authorities as well.

COMMISSION'S WEYMOUTH DECISION UPHELD IN COURT

The Commission's May 4, 1981 decision to dismiss the
Teleprompter appeal of the Weymouth license award was upheld
recently by the Suffolk Superior Court. In the Commission's
decision, Teleprompter ' s standing as an aggrieved applicant was
denied because Westinghouse , the corporation which owns Boston's
Channel 4 (WBZ), owned over 27% of Teleprompter ' s stock, and
therefore Teleprompter was barred by federal and state crossowner-
ship restrictions from operating a system in Weymouth. Teleprompter
appealed this decision to the Suffolk Superior Court. On October 9,
1981, a summary judgment for the defendants (the Commission, the
Weymouth Board of Selectmen, and Bay Shore Cable TV Associates, the
winning applicant) was issued. Using reasoning similar to that in

-3-

the Commission's decision, Judge Fine ruled that, for all practical
purposes, Teleprompter "would be ineligible to receive the license
and is suffering no injury as a result of the award of the license
to Bay Shore."

KAY MURPHY RETIRES

Another familiar face has left the Commission office. After
46 years of government service Kay Murphy has retired. While only
the last few years of those 46 were spent working at the Commission
we will greatly miss Kay's sparkling Irish sense of humor and wit.
Kay possessed highly developed skills as an administrative secretary
and played a vital role at the Commission. We wish her the very
best in her retirement.

COMMISSION'S LICENSING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MUNICIPALLY
OWNED SYSTEMS

In response to a city's inquiry regarding the applicability
of the Commission's licensing regulations to a municipally owned
system, the Commission issued an advisory letter on November 3,
1981, stating its opinion that the licensing regulations do
apply to municipal ownership. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 166A, section
20, states that any municipally owned system "shall be subject
to this chapter as if the system were privately owned and opera-
ted." The Commission's licensing regulations state that a cable
license is valid only when granted according to those regulations;
accordingly, granting a license to a municipal entity must be
done according to the existing regulations to be valid.

It has been suggested that a different set of licensing
regulations for municipally owned systems might be appropriate.
The Commission indicated in its letter that it would be interested
in proposals to that effect.

ANNOUNCING CHANNEL

The Commission has taken a positive and active position
regarding community programming. We realize that Cable TV is not
entirely packaged television, but a new technological experience
where any group or individual can create and produce programs. In
order to foster growth in this area, the Commission has published
CHANNEL, our community programming newsletter. Through the
publication of CHANNEL, the Commission hopes to identify new groups,
publicize workshops and conferences, promote programming efforts
and generally open channels of communication throughout the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

DEERFIELD CABLE RATE INCREASE APPROVED

On October 26, 1981, the Commissioner approved a rate increase
for the Deerfield Cable System in Bernardston and Northfield
(Docket No. COV-31). The Boards of Selectmen in both towns held

-4-

public hearings and voted to grant the rate increases, and the
Commission issued a "Certificate of Verification" approving the
increases ,

MASSACHUSETTS CABLE STATISTICS

The following statistics have been compiled and are now
available from the Commission by request :

TITLE OR SUBJECT

ITEM NO.

UPDATED

Cable Television Systems
Operating in Massachusetts

Saturation Report

Operating and Franchising
Cable Companies

Rates and Charges

Licensing Status Report

Licensing Activity and
Housing Units List

Application Deadlines

NOTICE OF INQUIRY

2
3

4
5
6

Annually (April)

Annually (April)
Annually (September)

Quarterly

1st of every month

1st of every month

1st of every month

On October 30, 1981 the Commission sent a Notice of Inquiry
on the subject of license renewals to all recipients of the
Licensing Bulletin.

The inquiry mentioned several options under consideration
by the Commission for a regulation on license renewals. Comments
on these options as well as suggestions, arguments and alternative
proposals are welcomed at the Commission. Comments should arrive
at the Commission prior to December 1, 1981.

If further information is desired, please contact the
Commission office.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

COMMUNITY

DATE

ACTION TAKEN

Natick

10/8/81

Deadline for execution
of a final license
extended to January 15
1982.

Mendon

10/18/81

Allowed to proceed wit
sole applicant; waiver
of §3.03 granted.

Southampton

10/19/81

Allowed to proceed wit
soIq applicant; waiver
of §3.03 granted.

Randolph

10/23/81

Deadline for completin
the cable licensing
process extended to
November 10, 1981.

-5-

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS

COMMUNITY

Men don

Marshf ield

DATE

11/6/81

11/6/81

ACTION TAKEN

Deadline for final
decision extended to
November 16, 1981.

Waiver of §3.03(1) granted
subject to stated con-
ditions .

FLASH!! NOTICE OF INQUIRY UPDATE!!

Since this Bulletin went to press, the deadline for
filing comments on the License Renewal Notice of Inquiry
has been extended from December 1, 1981 to January 8, 1982.

•■•"■.•"■■■

■■■■•.-<*•■• ^ '■■• .

•-::•' ^ ■;•■.■.-.-• ■

■

■=»■

■

'-'••-■-■■■'■■
...,.■.■,.;■-■■.